ZeroTheHero
Well-known member
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 9,266
Thanks for the informative and well written reply.A) If the majority are the Rolls Royce small reactors then the high level nuclear waste is actually quite small in quantity* which will help in finding safe storage. Old style Nuclear reactors will be a lot more relatively obviously.
Nuclear waste needs to be split as even Hospitals produce nuclear waste. I think you are referring to high level waste rather than low level waste.
It will need a brave political decision to build a storage facility in an area with the appropriate geological conditions rather than just fit it into an area that already has nuclear facilities/Storage facilities. Whilst logically West Cumbria would seem the place, the geology isn't suitable it appears and although they have been/are looking under the seabed off of West Cumbria I don't know if the geology is any different.
What would you suggest they do with the high level waste if not store it in a purpose built facility?
I don't know if this will help you:
How much radioactive waste is there in the UK? - Cleaning up our nuclear past: faster, safer and sooner
Real-life views of those decommissioning the UK’s earliest nuclear sites safely, securely and cost-effectively in a way that protects people and the environment.nda.blog.gov.uk
Going off the links provides more detail such as looking at the Inventory website itself. Specifically on disposal/storage of waste:
How do we manage radioactive waste? | UK Radioactive Waste Inventory (UKRWI)
Radioactive waste management involves a series of stages, including planning and preparation, treatment, packaging, storage and disposal. Most…ukinventory.nda.gov.uk
And renewable energy has waste/production problems with batteries/turbine blades and the mining methods of rare minerals. None of them are perfect.
B) The Rolls Royce Small Reactors should have considerable reduced costs of decommissioning. I'd hope that the modern larger reactors will have decommissioning planning built in unlike the old reactors we originally built in this country. You'd hope the costs are built into the price paid when it is generating electricity so the company pays it but as it is this Govt negotiating currently who knows!
C) Again this Govt, who knows!
I think nuclear has to be part of the mix to provide certainty in supply as energy storage is nowhere near up to the task yet and as demonstrated recently, renewable supply is up and down in terms of generation. I'd prefer more of the Roll Royce small reactors around the country nearer the point of usage. But would settle for constellations of them on existing sites as a back up such as Sellafield etc.
*This comes from somebody in the industry.
Reading the second of the links you supplied, this jumped out at me:
<quote>
Long-term Management
The UK government is working with technical specialists, local communities and regulators to find a safe disposal route for HLW. The preferred option for managing HLW is ‘geological disposal’. This involves placing packaged radioactive waste in an engineered, underground facility or ‘repository’. The geology (rock structure) provides a barrier against the escape of radioactivity.</quote>
Which actually says that they have NOT yet found a way of disposing of the high level waste properly if you are still working with people to find one! It would seem to me that if you are about to start producing even small(ish) quantities of this stuff, you ought to have an 'exit strategy' that consists of more than 'working with' some people to try to find a way.
A quick bit of Googling (yeah, I know), brought up this:
<quote>
Transuranic wastes, sometimes called TRU, account for most of the radioactive hazard remaining in high-level waste after 1,000 years. Radioactive isotopes eventually decay, or disintegrate, to harmless materials. Some isotopes decay in hours or even minutes, but others decay very slowly.
</quote>
For high level waste this seems to be the process:
<quote>
The liquid HLW is mixed with crushed glass in a furnace to produce a molten product. The molten product is then poured into stainless steel canisters, which hold approximately 150 litres of waste. This is a process called ‘vitrification’ and converts the waste into a stable, solid form for long-term storage and disposal.
</quote>
This is then supposedly stored in warehouses for a period of up to 100 years and then put down a mine somewhere. Now (as a layman) if this stuff stays radioactive for 1,000 years, the hope is that the steel drums don't rust away and the earth/rock around the mine doesn't move/crack for about 900 years. That seems an awful gamble and expensive - presumably it will have to be monitored for that period? Does anyone seriously think it *will* be? Or does it being in the future make it 'not our problem'? And if (in 200 years) this stuff does start to be a problem, who is then going to sort it out. It sure as anything isn't going to be Scottish Power or EDF - they probably won't even exist!
Bearing that in mind, my suggestion as to what to do with high level waste is probably 'stop producing any more of it'!
There was an energy industry expert on the radio earlier (R5 Live) who pointed to this - https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/live shows you what is producing today's energy. 14% nuclear, the same as solar power. Wind is producing 45%. Now apparently a nuclear power station (he said) can cost up to £23 Billion to build. In my (non expert) mind that seems like an awful lot that could instead be spent on more solar farms, wind turbines (both on and offshore), battery technology, hydro, biomass etc etc etc. And that's for just one nuclear power station.
For points B and C - I agree. Trusting that any government is doing anything purely for the benefit of the country is probably naïve - with the current lot probably doubly so.
I really would prefer investment in electricity storage research to create improved battery technology and an increase in the building of wind and solar farms to fill them up, while using tidal and hyrdo to produce a more constant 'on demand' supply.
